3 ms·
I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I'
by tmnvix 2y ago
I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case. Are other members of Hezbollah considered legitimate targets? From memory, the Iranian ambassador had one. Were they a legitimate target?
- bhouston 2y ago> I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case. 4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities. I am not sure of final tallies, but the source is here: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers-harmed-hezbollah-civilians https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> 4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities A 3:1 CCR is close to par for the course for NATO and positively honourable for e.g. Russia [1]. Tptacek's take is correct. (Of course it's Patrick.) One can reasonably disagree with the strike, even if limited to the precedent it set for plastic detonators that most countries' scanners can't pick up. But as a military tactic, even taking Hezbollah's numbers at face value, it was normally discriminating for a Western power. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#2023_I...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]